511–520 of 752 posts
Wtf, simply not true: Brave: chrome://flags/#brave-extensions-manifest-v2 > brave://settings/extensions/v2 > Enable uBlock Origin (Brave-hosted, even better). Helium comes with uBlock Origin pre-installed. Edge even still has it https://microsoftedge.microsoft.com/addons/detail/ublock-ori... And I'm sure others ...I personally only use/test Brave, Brave Origin, Helium and Firefox.
Opera also claims they are committed to support manifest V2 forever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The issue is that adblocking doesn't work with it Except this is objectively not true… uBlock Origin Lite is nearly as good as uBO and blocks nearly everything except for mostly Twitch ads. Manifest v3 is a big security upgrade and effectively closes off the permanent RCE pathway that v2 allowed.
So we already see one major ad category it's unable to block. When will advertisers catch on to put more of their ads in that category?
Guess it was a bad idea for everyone to switch to a browser made by one of the world’s biggest advertising companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Complete, authoritative list of Firefox extensions officially recommended by Mozilla. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?promoted=re... Some quite informative discussion on Firefox subreddit when I discovered and posted the above list there a few months ago. https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1pyvx2v/complete_a... The Recommended Extensions program description: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/k…
I seem to remember TamperMonkey being on there but not ViolentMonkey, which I didn't agree with. However, I see neither of them on there. Both are available but not recommended. I wonder what is going on with that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Websites already can barely be assed to care about supporting Firefox users, doing adblocking by default is a great way to get websites to start putting up banners that say "our website does not work with your browser, please switch to Chrome" en-masse. And Mozilla did develop anti-fingerprinting tech, but they can't enable it by default because it breaks lots of websites and when a website doesn't work they're not g…
Websites blocking Firefox because of ad blocking has happened before: https://web.archive.org/web/20070817224229/http://whyfirefox...
Snapchat tries to block Firefox, but all you have to do is fuzz the agent to say you're Chrome and then you're in with no issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or you could just use Firefox.
The only reason that Google keep Firefox around is because they find it beneficial for antitrust reasons. We should prepare for a future without Firefox, because one day it won't be there anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This point would be far more credible if browsers weren't in business to do what you claimed extensions are there to do. I'd also argue that creating a full browser without a profit motive is more unrealistic than creating an extension and uploading it - for free - to a web store.
Right, basically no web browser has a profitable business model except through licensing or being subsidized through some other branch of the business. The best pure browser company in history was Opera, and they didn't fail because they weren't innovating. It is simply not a survivable model. People don't remember anything, but during Google's recent anti trust case, one floated "solution" was to spin Chrome off as…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We seem to have a similar philosophy. Have you found a good way to deal with modifying or selectively disabling things like webpacked js or react?
I've tried everything from relying on uBlock Origin's anti-sabotage injections to literally reverse engineering websites and directly using all the internal APIs their own javascripts consume. My dream was to have a "custom HTTP client" for every website. Instead of one browser for all sites, I write "adapters" for them that scrape the data into my own schemas. Maintaining this was far too much work back then, but no…
Do you mean the rules like
*##+js(acis, document.oncontextmenu)
>reverse engineering websites and directly using all the internal APIs their own javascripts consume.
Interesting. By userscript or some other way? I've run into a number of situations where I either can't find a pointer to the internal js, or if I do find one, the browser or something ends up preventing me from accessing or modifying internal state with some sort of permission error. The latter might just be React though.
I'd be very interested in looking, if you have open sourced any of this.